Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors.

Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

This page lists copyedits which have been requested by members of the Wikipedia community for specific articles.

[edit] Instructions

To ensure that requests are processed smoothly and efficiently, please follow the instructions below. A worked example is also provided. Please raise any questions on the Talk page.

[edit] Making a request

To request that an article be copyedited by the League, do not edit this page, as it is based on a hierarchy of templates. First, be aware that articles must meet certain criteria, or any request for copyediting will be denied. These criteria are given in brief below – more detailed explanations can be found here.

  1. The article must be written in English.
  2. The article must comply with the major stylistic requirements of the manual of style and the stylistic requirements of appropriate WikiProjects.
  3. The article must be free from major content issues.
  4. The article must be stable.

Once you are sure that your request meets these criteria, follow this three-step process:

I Place the {{LOCErequest}} template on the article's talk page. To do so, copy and paste the following code to the top of the talk page, immediately below any WikiProject banners and content templates such as {{ArticleHistory}}:
{{LOCErequest}}

This will generate this message box:

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Please add the code:
}}{{LOCE|{{{s}}}|class=articletype|title=WikiProject League of Copyeditors|date=~~~~~
to the bottom of the requests page, replacing articletype by the classification of this article.

If the box you receive does not look like this, read this section.
II Copy the code from the message box (not from the example box above), follow the link and paste the code at the bottom of the list. Follow the comments in the edit box. You need to replace articletype by the type of article that you are requesting a review for, as follows:
  • FA = The article is already featured, but it could still do with copyediting.
  • FAC = The article is a featured article candidate, and the quality of the prose is the only remaining objection to its promotion to featured article status. Copyediting should not be requested if there are other significant alterations to make to the article.
  • FAR = The article is under featured article review, and the quality of its prose has been criticised.
  • GA = The article is a good article. Often, a copyedit is requested in preparation for featured article candidacy.
  • GAC = The article is a good article candidate, and the reviewer has requested that it be copyedited before it can be passed as good-article standard.
  • NA = The article does not fall into any of the categories above.
III Once you have saved your edit to that page, you will find a list of newly-added requests for which no comments have been left. Find your article in the list, and follow the "Please edit this page" link. Then add a comment about what it is you require from a copyedit. Follow the instructions on the page, and the comments in the edit screen.

[edit] Repeat requests

If the article has already been copyedited by the League, the {{LOCErequest}} template will display the details of this prior copyedit, rather than instructions for step II above. To correct this, the old subpage must be deleted. Follow the "Add comments" link and replace the contents of the page with {{db-housekeeping}}. It should take only a few hours at most for an admin to delete the subpage. Once the page has been deleted, the {{LOCErequest}} will return to looking like the example above. Then continue with the instructions above.

[edit] Responding to a request

League members will generally respond to requests in chronological order – the oldest requests in a particular category will usually be answered first. Some categories have substantial backlogs which may take weeks to clear, so be patient if your request is not answered immediately.

To copyedit an article, follow this four-step process:

I Place the {{LOCEinuse}} template at the top of the article's main page, and save the page. This is a customised version of the {{inuse}} maintenance template:
 This article is currently being copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Its content is therefore actively undergoing a major edit for a short while.
As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. The user who added this notice will be listed in the page history. If this page has not been edited for several hours, please remove this template. This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts. If you have any thoughts or concerns, please post them to the discussion page for review by League members.
II Copyedit the article. Copyeditors should be familiar with the Manual of Style and all its subsections and should apply them appropriately to the article.

Copyeditors should determine whether the article is written in British or American English, and ensure consistency throughout the article. If the nature of the article is unclear, editors should proceed with caution as spelling differences are the most common cause of edit wars. If the Manual of Style permits multiple forms of formatting without preference, copyeditors should use the style preference of the article if one is clear. If no preference is apparent in the article, copyeditors should use the style they feel most comfortable with.

Many reviewers find that the easiest way to copyedit an article is to print off a hardcopy and go through it with a pen, making crossings-out and alterations as appropriate. It is often easier to find grammatical or stylistic errors in this way than when viewing the text on a screen.
III Once you have completed the copyedit, remove the {{LOCEinuse}} template from the top of the article's main page. Navigate to the article's talk (discussion) page. Find the LoCE copyedit request box on the talk page and click the Add comments link. Copy the following code and paste it in the first blank space in the edit screen (under where it says "ADD REVIEW UPDATES BELOW"):
:{{LOCEcopy|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}}

If you wish to make any comments about the article, please make them in the section entitled "ADD COMMENTS BELOW". Please do not add comments where it says "ADD REVIEW UPDATES BELOW", as this will cause improper display of various other templates.
IV Navigate to the LoCE Requests base page. Find your chosen article in the list. At the end of the line for the article, insert the following code:
|copy=yes

Save the revised page. This will remove the article from the list of articles to be copyedited and add it to the list of articles to be proofread.

[edit] Proofreading

To ensure that stylistic mistakes do not escape the notice of the League, each article, after it has been copyedited, will be reviewed by one or more proofreaders. Once an article has been copyedited, the addition of the |copy=yes tag will move it to the "Articles requiring proofreading" section below.

To proofread an article, follow the same process as the initial copyeditor. However, instead of {{LOCEcopy..., add the template :{{LOCEproof|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}} underneath the copyeditor's template.

[edit] Removing an article

Once an article has been copyedited and reviewed by one or more proofreaders, it will be removed from these lists. To remove an article from the list:

  1. Edit the article's talk page, replacing {{LOCErequest}} with {{LOCEcomplete|date=~~~~~}}
  2. Navigate to the Requests base page. Find the article's entry (template call) in the Requests base page list. Copy it to your computer's short-term memory (clipboard). Delete the article's entry from the Requests base page list. Save the page.
  3. Edit the current archive and paste the removed template call there. Replace {{LOCE|{{{s}}} with {{LOCEarchive.

[edit] Denying a proofread

If a request does not meet the League's requirements, it will not be copyedited. If you feel a request does not meet the requirements, close the request as follows:

  1. Edit the article's talk page, replacing {{LOCErequest}} with {{LOCEdenied|date=~~~~~}}
  2. Return here, edit the article's discussion subpage by following the "Add comments" link, and add the code {{LOCErefuse|user=~~~|date=~~~~~|reason=denialreason}} where it says "ADD REVIEW UPDATES HERE", replacing denialreason with a reason for denying the request.
  3. Navigate to the Requests base page. Delete the line containing the template call for that article. Save the page.

[edit] Other pages

Requests are listed below sorted by category. League members may also find the following pages useful:

Contents


[edit] Featured Articles

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Currently at FAC. Copyedit request was posted on April 3, but received no feedback. - Pandacomics 04:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Article moved to this section as it is no longer an FAC. Epbr123 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Article is once again at FAC. Happy‑melon 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Copy edited first couple of sections - until (not incl.) Musical career. Will come back to do more if it still needs it. Skumarla (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I wrote/cleaned up the bulk of the article by myself and it has become a GA, but English isn't my motherlanguage so the article needs to be proofread and copyedited by more editors. Thanks. Kariteh 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Review of the use of passive voice when discussing historic events. Review of lead section. Review of non-English words for consistency. Patrick Ѻ 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current Featured article candidate. I'd like to make sure that the article is correctly formatted and that there is no significant writing problems. Ibaranoff24 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is currently a GA, and an FAC. A copyedit has been requested at FAC. There may be other issues with getting it to FA, which is why I've listed it here.--BelovedFreak 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Now a featured article, but could still use a copy edit. --BelovedFreak 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • While there were originally quite a few objections, the only actionable ones left now are the prose, especially in the "Route" section. While I've tried to improve it, I'm not entirely sure that it's improved to the standard of an FA.
  • Now an FA. Will (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Several editors have raised the need for copyediting, with one objection due to MoS problems - dashes and punctuation. I am not a native English speaker and dashes and punctuation are my weak points; please help :) --User:Piotrus 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Article is 96k. Have you considered the guidelines at WP:SIZE? Perhaps sub-articles are appropriate. This is not denying the request, would just like to know if the guideline has been considered. Regards, Unimaginative Username 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I consider it obsolete; many FAs get promoted despite similar size. That said I am all in favor of creating subarticles, and I have created many for this article.--User:Piotrus 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am the sole contributor of much of the text of the article, which has expanded hugely since passing GA criteria (dif). To achieve GA standard, the article needed a lot of copy-editting by other editors, and as I'm hoping to have this reach featured status soon, I would appreciate the League's help very much. Skomorokh incite 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I will take the assignment. Expect me to start in a day or two. atakdoug (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, I was beginning to worry that no-one would. Skomorokh incite 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has been GA since the film's American release, I've been taking care of the article since the movie was shooting, and I've incorporated as much as I can now from the DVD, so it's stable. I'd like to nominate this for FA soon. Alientraveller (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • After digging, reviewer found "choppy paragraphs" and hinted that the prose needs "massaging."
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I'm the principal contributor of this article, and so far I have two failed FA nominations. Since a common complaint was about the prose, I would be grateful to receive some help in copy-editing. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Tony: "Nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." It is only 8 kb of readable prose. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've been working on this since May 2007, implementing every bit of useful information I can find. Now that I've finished with the stuff from the DVD, I'd like to try an FAC soon. The prose throughout the article could use some work, with no particular section in any more need than another. Thanks. Gran2 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The main issue is prose, as cited by a couple of users during this article's FAC. It narrowly failed, with three supports and four opposes (a supporting user decided to switch because of a perceived lack of stability). The article just needs minor additional fixes and adjustments to prose before it is truly FA quality. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have recently expanded this article and created a sister article of Nuova Cronica; so far the only main issue of concern by FAC reviewers is that this article needs a general clean up of possible grammatical mistakes, poor wording, or poor organizational style, such as somewhat excessive use of proseline in the beginning section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The primary issue with this article is the need to have an editor unfamiliar with American football point out areas that are unclear. The article has been looked over by several editors familiar with American football, but an edit for clarity is needed from someone unfamiliar with the subject. It's a long article, but if you're unwilling or unable to make changes, please contact me and I will make them as soon as possible. Thank you for your review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Users demanded the article to be copyedited after it appeared on the Main Page on February 12th, 2008. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current Featured List candidate. A copyedit is the only thing needed to get the list promoted. ISD (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The list has been successfuly promoted to FL, but a copyedit would still be useful. ISD (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Would like another set of eyes to take a look at this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I started working on this article recently, but it still suffers from awkward phrasing. Hoping to push to FA. David Fuchs (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • General copyediting requested. It has gone through peer review, but would like more eyes to take a look in order to assure safe passage through FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Currently at FAC. While I have addressed all objections (there are also some suggestions in the review that can be examined after the review), the only objection that I have not been able to satisfy on my own relate to the prose. 52 Pickup (deal) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Promoted to FA, but it still wouldn't hurt for someone to go over the prose. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • WikiProject Tool has been working on this article with the goal of achieving FA, so improvements in prose and flow along with any other FLC requirements are very much appreciated. Lara❤Love 03:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please copy edit this article for style, prose, grammar and presentation. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is an old Emsworth article, written while the FA criteria was much lower. Myself and other editors will take on the content issues, mainly referencing, but the minor MOS fixes and the like will help the process and would be much appreciated. Thank you, PeterSymonds

[edit] Featured Article candidates

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Former FAC, failed because of concerns regarding the fair use image (now removed) and need for copyediting. I would like to bring this back up to FAC shortly, so I appreciate any copyediting/advice that can given. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is an FAC and has recently passed GA. Can you please help copyedit it by addressing tweaks in the style to make it flow better, and general word use? Prose flow is the only remaining concern, the only problem which was introduced so far. According to one editor, there is necessarity in minor style tweaks to make it flow brilliantly, particularly in the personal life section. Thanks and best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • A reviewer on GA sweep suggested a service from you guys. A general copyedit would be appreciated as it is about ready for FAC. The JPStalk to me 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's ready for FAC so a copyed would be really appreciated. The JPStalk to me 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am listing this because of the need for a copy-edit. A fellow Wikipedian has highlighted several issues with this article at FAC in terms of grammar, punctuation, organization of paragraphs, and so on. A partial list of the things which need fixing can be found at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT, but it looks like a full copy-edit is required. — Wackymacs (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is constantly being asked for a serious copyeditor from its FAC, so I decided to come here and request for one. There are continuation issues, some grammar, and MoS. Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article is presently at FAC; I've had a few other editors help with copyedits before taking it there, but these are people also in the VG project, and I'm still running into language issues on the FAC (all other aspects have been handled save for checking of images). As I myself and the other VG editors are probably too close to the article, I don't think we can give it a fair copyedit again, though we'll try. --MASEM 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Hi, this article recently failed FAC and copyediting by an uninvolved entity was mentioned as needed. Specifically, word choice, stiltedness of prose, clarity, and style were cited. Any and all help is greatly appreciated!
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Copy-editing concerns the sole remaining item before a WP:FLC nomination. Any aid would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current FAC, with outstanding objections based on criteria 1A. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. Leithp 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Not a FAC per se, but it has been nominated for Featured list before, and peer reviewed once. I addressed pretty much everything that made it failed the first minus minus some appearance issues due to a template. The text itself is pretty solid and shouldn't change much. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Review candidates

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like a copyeditor to review the article for redundancy and clarity, general flow, general grammar and punctuation issues to help the article pass criterion 1 of the featured article criteria.

[edit] Good articles

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Reorganized the article, copy-edited the lead. Further copy-editing in the re-ordered section is still necessary to optimize the flow and logic of the text. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • has been on FAC for about two months and the only remaining objections appear to be that it needs a copy edit. Any help would be appreciated. —ptk✰fgs 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Article is no longer an FAC. --Epbr123 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I recently passed this as a GA. The main contributor would like to make it an FA, needs some work on the prose. Quadzilla99 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has failed four GA nominations and featured article candidacy. Please take a look at it and fix up the copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Per suggestion on peer review. The article needs copy editing in "MANY places" and English is not my first language. Thanks for all your efforts on Wikipedia.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Currently an FAC. Some general copy-editing has already occurred, although more in-depth copy-editing is needed. Mostly prose that needs work - • The Giant Puffin • 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No longer an FAC. Epbr123 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I got some pointers from peer review but nothing involving prose and grammar. Thanks for your help. CJ 13:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current GA (and in fact A class by WP:AUTOMOBILE's standard). Has been nominated for FA several times and failed most recently solely due to my objection on grounds of prose. The reaction to failure at the wikiproject was "Yeah - but it seems to have been rejected with just one comment...the dreaded "I don't like the quality of your prose" thing...which nobody ever knows what to do about.". I'm being bold therefore and listing it here on behalf of user:Karrmann and WP:AUTOMOBILES. Cheers. 4u1e 09:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've worked on expanding the article greatly, but writing isn't my greatest skill, so I'd very much appreciate if an experienced copyeditor took a look. It's currently a GAC. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-24 13:22
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • It has been tagged for cleanup for a few months now, so any help on the prose in all sections would be of great help. Eventually, we want to make this go to Good Article candidates. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This isn't a major job compared to others I don't think. Has passed GA without any problems and had a very thorough peer-review. However just needs the prose tweaked to be ready for FAC. Thanks. - Shudde talk 10:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was copyedited before but it failed being a featured article. The only reason was because the article's prose was not written properly and needed copyediting. Therefore, I am requesting help to improve this article to become a featured article. Thanks. σмgнgσмg 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I want to request this article to be copy edited so as to help it reach Featured Article status bingo99 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Harry and the Potters has succesfully gone through the GA process. It has also gone through the Peer Review process but with little feedback. The article is up for FAC. I'm going through it with a fine tooth comb. However, the article needs to be copy edited by a new set of eyes and by someone with the talent to do so. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Everyone at WikiProject:CSI have put a lot of time on this article, and now it's failing at it's FAC because it doesn't have a brilliant prose. Oh kind members of the league! please help us! -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Good Article since almost a year. I want to get this article to FA status, but a good part of it is written by me, and I'm not a native speaker, so it might need CE. Thanks =) No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article is now nominated for WP:GAC. Though the GAC reviewers have not commented about copyediting, the issue is sooner or latter going to be raised. At the Peer review of Matrikas, a reviewer commented "The prose on this needs some work." Thus, the request.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article recently passed GAN and the peer review bot has suggested a copyedit prior to FAC. I think the prose is OK but it obviously needs expert attention to make it "brilliant". Brad (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have twice tried to put this article forward for FA status and have failed. Copyediting was one of the issues that came up. I just want the article to be given a good copyedit so it can be put forward again for FA status again. ISD (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am looking for someone to do a good copy edit on this article, I've managed to get it to GA on my own (not totally of course I had a lot of help) but I am not a native English speaker/writer and I'm not able to personally improve much on the article on my own, but I want someone good and experienced to read it over and edit it for language, grammer etc before I even think about submitting it for FA. Also, the article is about professional wrestling and I've worked really hard to make it accessible to everyone and more encyclopedic that most wrestling articles, I need someone with little or no pro wrestling knowledge to read it and tell me if it's understandable, slang free and "out of universe" enough. Thanks in advance MPJ-DK (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article has failed and failed again, mostly for in-universe context. However, a recent GA reviewer stated that the article did not meet criteria 1a (meaning that the article must be well-written). When I heard this, I figured I need an expert to fix this as I am clearly unqualified. I would really like somebody to just read through the article and see what they could do. I would appreciate it. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has succeeded it fourth GA nomination, but the main opposition on its FAC was that its prose is horrible. It needs to be copyedited soon if it is to progress. — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article needs a copyedit for it to become a featured article. ISD (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • It has been pointed out in peer reviews that the article requires a copy-edit. Along with these and the fact that I am one of the main contributors of the article's current content I feel I should have the article looked at from somebody who isn't involved in the article, that and the fact I'm not the best of writers. Rezter (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just did Tool; guess I'll give this a shot. Give me a couple days, please. atakdoug (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been over 6 weeks since you said you would copyedit the article and still there hasn't been any response. Could another user please give it a go? REZTER TALK ø 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was recently subject to GA review, which it passed with a few tweaks. I hope to take it to FAC and copy editing support would be much appreciated. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I wish to push this article to a featured status. It was recommended by an editor to request for a copyedit here to correct some 'awkward phrasing' and 'incorrect grammar'. kawaputratorque 06:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Edited Intro & History - will do more as I can. Skumarla (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article is being prepared for FAC, which it failed in 2007. Content has been altered significantly recently, needs a copyedit to improve grammar, punctuation etc. Lurker (said · done) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've been advised to request a copyedit, as I've currently edited to my hearts content, reaching GA status and now I'd like to aim for FA before a peer review. It'd be great if it could be copyedited. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • User:Tony1 said that there is a "need for a thorough copy-edit throughout"--Miyokan (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Failed FAC. Many comments made advising copyediting, referring amongst other matters to choppy prose.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has repeatedly failed GAC because of the grammar, as it was written by non-native English speakers. I feel the article would benefit greatly from a copyedit. Bogdan що? 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ukraine just passed GAC, but a copyedit would still be necessary for it to reach the desired FA level. Bogdan що? 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is currently a GA and needs a thorough copy-editing to proceed for FAC. Thank you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The main reason this article did not become an FA was because it needed a "serious" copyedit. Please give this article one. ISD (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article is at peer review and ready for FAC. However, I feel a copyedit is needed before it makes the full push towards towards FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Walt Whitman -Hopefully not major concerns, not a long article either (32k, I think?). Recent GA review said it would need a copy edit and I tend to be not so good at noticing my own mistakes. With any luck, this will be a quickie. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This is curently a featured article candidate. On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christian metal someone suggested that the article needs copyediting and grammar correction as well as better choise of words so that the article does not seem to written by a non-English-speaker. It meets the rest of the criteria.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like to nominate this article for Featured Article status. I would appreciate it if someone could look over the article and help fix any writing problems. In addition, I would really appreciate help taking the article "out of universe", although I'm not sure that copyeditors normally help with that sort of thing. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article has recently been vastly expanded and improved. It is currently concluding a peer review and I would like to nominate this article for GA or FA stutus soon. I was recommended to come here by a member of the LOCE. We need copyediting for flow, tone of voice, grammar, spelling, paragraph structure (stub paragraphs), and whatever else services you could provide. We also need major help with our citations and sources as they are not all properly formatted and I have been unable to find someone who is able of willing to cita sources in the correct format.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was copyedited before but it failed being a featured article. The only reason was because the article's prose was not written properly and needed copyediting. Therefore, I am requesting help to improve this article to become a featured article. Thanks. σмgнgσмg 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Former FAC. One complaint was over-use of in-universe style prose. "Critical and editorial commentary" section was also noted in the review.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current FAC. Please take a look at it, and work on the copyediting. If anyone has any specific questions or comments about the article as it is, feel free to bring them up on the talk page, and we'll discuss it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article written by a non-native English speaker. Failed last FA nomination partly on the grounds of criterion 1a. Quality of prose remains, I believe, the last issue to be solved before renominating the article to FAC. — Kpalion(talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article has been cleaned up and trimmed down in the last few months. It is up for a peer review with the view to nomination for GA or FA status. The article could be improved with copyediting for flow, NPOV, grammar, spelling, paragraph structure. It also needs help cleaning up redundancies and contractions.--Nreive (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has been recently promoted to GA class and would benefit from a copyedit so it can be nominated for FA status. -- Nreive (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am looking to take this article to FAC eventually. The article needs a general copy-edit, prose improvement and a focus on removing or explaining cricket-related jargon. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments

I am resubmitting this article because FAC feedback has suggested that it needs another copyedit to bring its quality up to pass to FA-status. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am looking for the prose of this article to be improved, which will hopefully lead to a WP:FA nomination. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Reasonable Doubt is a well-structured and factually accurate article, but I would like the grammar and prose to be a little tighter. A solid copyedit should make it a featured article.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like the reviewer to thoroughly copy-edit the article, changing or removing any prose that may sound confusing to the reader.
  • Change wording on sentence structure should it sound confusing.
  • I would like the prose improved as a whole, so I can renominate it for FA-status.
  • Should the reviewer encounter any difficulties or problems, they may leave a message at WT:PW (which is very active), and a member of the project will be over to the article to help them. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this is taking so long, just get rid of it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
The GA reviewer commented that "There are a lot of problems with the prose in this article. In most places, it simply does not flow well." Since I am not a native speaker, I don't think I can fix that.
Thanks to User:Tyrangiel, it has been copyedited up to Etymology section [1]
Copyediting is done by the same user :) --Be happy!! (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article recently failed a FAC nom, though the only constructive comment it received was a need for cleaning up. I can't see where the problem is myself, and I'm hoping some fresh eyes will be able to spot the deficiencies. Note that someone else has nominated the article for GA, but there is no feedback as yet to suggest that a copyedit is required in order to succeed at this. My motive is to get the article ready for one last stab at FAC. I would appreciate any feedback. --FactotEm (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Trying to get this up to Featured Article quality. Use of jargon seems to be major objection. Dlong (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • General copyediting needs to be done to this article for it to pass WP:FAC. Please help! Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Although i am a member of LoCE, i am requesting someone to go thru the article and fix prose issues which might have escaped my eye. A few months ago, I copyedited the whole article b4 its GA nomination. A week back i listed this article for FAC and it was opposed due to prose issues. Since i am one of the main contributors to the article, it has been suggested that i let a fresh pair of eyes go thru it so that any prose issues left unaddressed might be corrected. The FAC nomination is here and the peer review is here.I hope copyediting the article wont take much time.... I am pushing for a FA status soon...so pls bear this in mind...thanx Gprince007 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have recently added a bunch of info, rearranged and reformated a lot of this article to try and make it acceptable for GA (or even FA) review, and as a result, it is a little patchy. It could do with an expert copyeditor going through it and ditching redundant text, making the sentence structure and flow much better, and making the whole article read comprehensively for a non-expert.~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a tough one, but I like a challenge... I'm on it. Livitup (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The only problem here, at least according to its FAC page is that it is choppily written. --Howard the Duck 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Fix places using colloquial phrases and where the flow is awkward. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
In the WP:MILHIST and WP:BIO peer reviews, it was suggested the article needs a copyedit. There is probably a phrase or two that needs to be reworded, for instance, "He did not dispute he ran hard for his seat". MrPrada (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article was previously a featured article candidate and was not passed, and I have now submitted it as a good article candidate. It was suggested in the FAC to submit a request for a copyedit to the LOCE and I have decided to do so. Thanks for any help. Hello32020 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: This was made a good article. Hello32020 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Copyedit needed on prose, which needs to be tweaked after failing FAC NapHit (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please copyedit this article for prose. In the FAC, prose has proven to be the main issue. The article is not a lengthy one, and MoS issues have been checked. There is a problem with 2 or 3 references (reliability) that is being taken care of. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article failed its FA nomination due to its prose. While I believe that there only seems to be minor errors, I would like editors to go over the article and edit where necessary. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • In a recent Good Article Review, this article was failing for the following reason; "The article needs copyediting by someone with strong punctuation skills. There are comma errors throughout the article that distract from the text.".
    • Y Done Rudget. 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article needs a simple grammer and prose check before renominated for FA status.  The Windler talk  09:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I need a general copyedit with this article, especially the prose. It's nominated for GA right now. Thanks in advance for your help. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The GA Reviewer who passed this article recommended that someone take a look at this article and do some copyediting, so it still needs one even though it's passed its GA nomination. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please check the grammatical correctness and spelling of the article.
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article went through the A-Class Review process and was passed to A-Class. One of the reviewers suggested a fresh set of eyes giving it a copy edit. I would like to take this article to FAC later this year after I complete a series of FOIA requests to get better references for the dates in the History section from the Michigan Department of Transportation itself. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have been working on this article for a while and seem to have come to a ceiling. I need a fresh look on this to kick it into FA. I thoroughly believe there are enough cited facts to make this a reliable article, however the style of prose lets it down. I would appreciate help with copy-editing this to sort it out, and make sure no errors and mistakes are present. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like this to become a Featured Article. It is already a Good Article, but has failed all three of its FA nominations. This was copyedited once before but more writing has been added that might need work.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please look at especially the background and release section - my writing there is terrible. The article is fairly short so there's not too much to go over. Thanks in advance if anyone can be bothered to help with this :) -- Naerii 07:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Max Mosley (edit|talk|history)– Added 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current FA candidate, for which copyedit has been requested by reviewer. Mosley is the son of the famous fascist Oswald Mosley, and motorsport's top administrator. 4u1e (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please copyedit for eventual FA nomination. Has been nominated once before for FA status; result was archive. Basically needs a once-over by a non-organ expert for purposes of clarity and some refining of prose. —Cor anglais 16 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • It just became a GA, the "Synopsis" section could do with a little copyediting. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments

talk 05:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The prose needs to be cleaned up. Also, a good copyedit would help the article. I want this article to pass WP:FAC - PGPirate 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I am requesting this article to be reviewed becuase many of the FAC reviewers have requested it, and I have gotten nowhere by fixing the article myself. Please copyedit it for grammar, spelling, prose, and tone. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Greeks: As English is not my native language I would like the article proof read by someone with a feel for the language and prose. There are no spelling mistakes (passed article through spellchecker) and no eggregious grammatical errors either. It does however need a hand with prose if it is to reach GA and FA standards. Please get in touch either at my talk page or the article's. Thanks for your time.Xenovatis (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments

A peer reviewer suggested the article should receive a once over by the LOCE just before we resubmit for FAC. The article has been through two FA nominations and two peer reviews. All comments have been addressed and the article is stable. Please consider any prose issues particularly wordy sentences which was the peer reviewers specific concern. I went through and corrected any wordy sentences that I found but another set of eyes would be helpful here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Moving the article towards FA, fresh pair of eyes appreciated! SeveroTC 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Would like to submit this article to FAC. The prose needs work as it is not fluent and easy to read highlighting the highway's better features. The article was re-written, as to begin with it was mainly an assemblage of facts from various sources. It has been set into different sections and facts connected in themes for each section. A help me was placed on user page in regards to the population counts and repetitive citations of stats Canada, however it was stated that the methodology was correct. Somehow the route needs to be explained without the length between every cùrve, hill and town, yet adequately to describe the highway in question which is a major throughway of Western Canada, this being the Saskatchewan segment. The GA recommended deletion of a section on ghost towns or the unincorporated areas which has been done. Article has been through peer review and highways peer review with limited comments. The article passed through automatic peer reviewer and Microsoft Word spelling and grammar checker. Thanks for any help to make the article more verbose and less tabular. Kind Regards SriMesh
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Would like to put this article for FAC. On good article review it was suggested a good copy edit from someone focused on prose would help the article. Kind Regards SriMesh
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is currently GA and is a recent FAC but was not promoted. Suggestion during FAC was copy-editing since the prose of the article was considered to be of poor quality. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments

This article is currently GA and is a recent FAC but was not promoted. Suggestion during FAC was copy-editing since the prose of the article was considered to be of poor quality.Realist2 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments

This article is currently GA and is a recent FAC but was not promoted. Suggestion during FAC was copy-editing since the prose of the article was considered to be of poor quality. Realist2 (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • A request has been made during the FA nomination process that this article be checked for awkward prose and general language cleanup. I would appreciate your assistance with this effort. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I'm trying to get this article up to FA. It was rejected at FAC recently, and various suggestions have been made that it needs properly copy-editing. I've done my best (and I'm sure all the other contributors have too), but it needs an expert touch to push it the final distance. Any help would be gratefully received. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • During our third peer review, the reviewer had requested that the article be added here. During the Featured Article Candidacy, numerous issues with the prose were raised, with examples from the lead and Health sections used to cite potential issues. Other editors also took issue with number formatting and run-on sentences. The article is very long, at 112 kb, with 43.8 kb of readable prose.--Patrick Ѻ 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like this article to be copyedited generally for the entire article. I have been working on this article for some time now, and have added about 130 references. I have also expanded some sections, and fixed typos, image placements. The article has also been through a Peer Review, located here, where I have fixed various points that came up. Therefore, I request this copy edit so that I can get London ready for an FAC, and will be able to have it copyedited before the FAC. There have been no comments for copy edit requirements AFAIK yet, but I would like the article to be copy edited. Thanks in advance, The Helpful One (Review) 11:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • A peer review suggested asking for a review, especially of punctuation and grammar. Artichoke2020 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article may require much copyediting; several sections were added after GA status was granted. I am aware of MOS and such, but clarity may be one area which needs improvement. Other fixes are welcome as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Requesting (a) final copyedit(s) before FAC. Comments on prose, clarity, etc, greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current Featured article candidate. It has been requested that the article receives a thorough copy-edit before being able to pass as a FA. Overall I think the article is okay but it may need a complete copy-edit to ensure that it has good grammer and prose. A quick response would be highly appreciated. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article is being readied for FA-class candidacy. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Failed FAC. Please take a look at this article as soon as possible and see what you can do to improve the article to the level of quality needed where it can be successfully listed as a FA. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC))
Edit this request  • Add comments

All significant additions to the page should be complete. Some citations have yet to be added but sources are generally strong. Balancing out the content and improving the prose are my primary concerns with this request. A recent peer review identified several issues that have been addressed for the most part but other issues can certainly be brought up. The only content issue with the page is the lead picture. I hope this is ready for the League.Mrshaba (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Request for a general clean-up of prose in preparation for FA candidacy. In particular, improving grammar and smoothness of the article. Boomtish (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article candidates

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The lead, Biography, and commemorations sections read choppy according to GA review. Article is on hold for seven days. Wrad (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I will work on this article.Jacqke (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • As per this FAC discussion page, the article's FA status is opposed per prose grounds. (see also this page) This is the only signifiant impediment to the promotion. The discussion talks about the improvement of grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure, diction, tone, and flow, mixes of British spellings and American ones. I do this request because I'm not a native speaker of English, so there are a lot of mistakes I don't even notice. --Danutz (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I'm hoping to get this article to GA or FA. I would like just a general copy-edit to clear up prose/spelling/grammar issues. There may also be some problems with wording.
Edit this request  • Add comments
The article has been tagged with {{copyedit}} since December 2007, I now intent to work the article to GA status but the "Appearances" section needs to be rewritten in a professional manner and some flowery language needs to be cleaned, I will handle both the "concept and creation" and "Reception" sections but the plot needs the help from someone with more expertise than me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Current GA candidate on hold for one week due to "numerous grammatical and spelling errors"
  • Article failed GA due to those problems.
Edit this request  • Add comments

[edit] Other or unclassified articles

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • GA/FA hopeful, but written by a non-native speaker and copyedited by non-native speakers only. It certainly needs a thorough and in-depth copyedit by a native speaker of English, preferably more than one (after all, we're eventually going for FA status). Todor→Bozhinov 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • this article is about a Turkish city in north central Turkey. It will be nominated for a GA review very soon and people advised it to be copyedited for syntax, grammar and flow.Ugur Olgun 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
- Parts of the articles seem to be roughly translated from German
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like this to be copyedited because there is a lot of text and some of it may be worded wrong. It is currenntly a GAC.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I've listed this because I have increased the content of this article. It had a peer-review and the peer-review suggested a copy-edit. --MicroX 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing in progress.--Lilipatina (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like this article to be scrutinized by a larger number of editors, as it's currently suffering from the editorial biases of its primary editor (me). I wish to eventually nominate this article to GA (and FA) status and as a first step, I've submitted it for peer review. An automated script suggested that this article should fully comply with Criterion 1A, so I've put it before the League to seek the opinion of qualified Wikipedia copyeditors. I appreciate your time and consideration. Cumulus Clouds 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of content issues that should be addressed before the article would be ready for copy-edit. Left them on the Talk page. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look. --Lukobe 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • No comments left by lister. Happy‑melon 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Basic paragraph-forming is required at the GAC reviewer's recommendation. WBOSITG (talk)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The remaining complaints are largely copy-editing requests that have gone largely beyond my ability to address, and an additional pair of eyes (or several) is necessary to rectify this. Specific complaints can be found at the article's nomination. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Lack of copy-editing was a major objection in two subsequent GACs; help needed from native English speaker in improving the language's quality.--User:Piotrus 17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Looking for general editing to bring this article up to A-class, organize information better for those unfamiliar with the topic, etc.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article needs work on prose and MOS. There are limited references for this article, due to the information only being contained in one place. The history section is called into question for its references.Storkpkp (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Needs cutting down of synopsis, non-neutral POV issues (e.g. laudatory references to Michael Ball), incorrectly formatted disambiguations, repair misuse of homophones (one/won), etc.Lawikitejana (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article used to be better than it is now — it read better, had slightly better documentation (especially in the section on the funeral), and had fewer "peacock terms" and non-NPOV remarks. It failed as a good article candidate in March, though it would have helped if "fact" tags had been added where citations were most needed; I've gone back and added such tags here and there, but there are more needs than the few that jumped out at me, I'm sure. There should be substantial reference material available, given that he's one of the dominant non-government figures in Latin American history of the last 50 years. I worked on the article several times previously and added a lot of documentation that seems to be gone now; try the history.Lawikitejana (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is in good condition, but I don't feel it is ready for GA nomination. I want to invite a fresh set of eyes outside of the John Mayer fanclub (myself included) to give it a good looksee.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This article is nearly ready for FA nomination. We need a copyedit to correct common grammatical, punctuation, and stylistic errors. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Basically the articles going through an FAC and the grammar and punctuations a bit rubbish, so could you guys help clear it up. Cheers
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has to be checked for grammatical consistency and its overall integrity.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article needs a copyediting to get ready for a future GAN. Thanks!Mitch32contribs 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article needs to be checked for POV. Content could be shortened a bit. Thanks in advance,-xC- 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Hi. My goal would be to re-promote this article to FA. Basic things need to be done including checking style, punctuation, references, links and consistency of translation of titles for example. Also, any comment would be appreciated. Randomblue (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article seems to be full of great information, but needs the steady hand of a talented copy editor to aid readability and bring up to GA. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have edited this list alot in the last few weeks, but know my grammar is at times extremely bad. Hopefully you could go through and make my writing a bit more readable to everybody else. I would like to get this lists to featured status.CStubbies 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
    • Requesting a general copyedit to create consistency in the article and to better it. --Charleenmerced Talk 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Hey folks, I think this article isn't too shabby but am in dire search for some more pairs of eyes to come and take a look at it. Specifically, prose/redundancy/style/grammar would be helpful. Much obliged, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have edited the article Valdivia, Chile for more than one year now, but I have focused on adding material to the article more than anything else. With such much content it requires too much work (for one editor) to reach the Good article criteria witch is the current goal.
  • Some work to do include:
  • 1 Citations and sources - try to find sources for the information that is in the article. I havent still found a good citable source for the citys population.
  • 2 Spelling and grammar - some sentences sounds very strange, maybe you could help
  • 3 Organize information - some information is repeated in different sections it can be unnesesary
  • 4 Expand article - I see it as the less nessesary improvement, but it is still the most attractive work
  • There are also some repeated information for example:===

In the Valdivia, Chile article i feel that some information is unneserarily repeated becuse Im not sure in whitch section it should be. I dont mean that all informetion can only be said once, I just want to make the article nice to read and keep everything on its topic. Maybe some of the sections of the article is unnesesary. It would be useful to have your opinion about:

  • The economy section vs the last part of recent history - in whitch section should the recent history of the economy be?
  • The economy section vs the last part of Independence and growt - in whitch section should tourism be?
  • Prehispanic times vs Independe and growth - a cite of Charles Darwin is repeated because it is important to contrast his description of the landskape with early Spaniars one, but in whicht section should this comparison be made?
  • Independence and growt vs German influences vs Education - Information about the German school apears in each of these sections.
  • Independence and growt vs German influences - where goes the limit between culture and history, the things that are said in the history section could be said under German influnces and viceversa.
  • Government and politics vs Ecological action - The CELCO case is named in both parts.
  • Government and politics vs Culture vs Great Chilean Earthquake and Valdivia in Los Lagos Region - Where should the information about the creation of Los Ríos Region be placed? Dentren
  • Kate Howard (edit|talk|history)– Added 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments

I edited the name of the man who first brought the grapes from Bordeaux. Also, Don Maximo Errazuriz is the man who founded Errazuriz winery and began the first commercial winery in Chile. The author merged two different names into one. You may clean up the article as you wish, but I wanted to clarify this point.

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Battle of Vimy Ridge was a GA candidate, but unfortunately it failed to meet the criteria at the time. I am requesting a copyedit for several reasons. For one, it will only help the article if a fresh eye checks it over. For another, there may be several spelling or grammatical errors that have been missed during editing, and a copyedit would surely help to rectify those. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have edited this to a standstill. Here is the comment I got after submitting for GA: This article is pretty well referenced and comprehensive. Its two main problems are that many of its images have no free use rationale (this is a quick killer of GA noms). Also, it needs a copyedit from someone not familiar with the subject. I'd suggest going to the WP:LOCE before renominating just to be sure everything is covered. I think I fixed the free use rationale. So what is left is that copyediting....Jacqke (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What I really need is help finding Original Research. Jacqke (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like nominate this for GA soon and I wanted to get it read through for redundancies and checked per WP:MOS Harland1 (t/c) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This page is in real need of a copy edit. It is just horrible and really needs to be reviewed. Thanks you SO much! Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • After considerable rewriting we need copy-editing before asking for a GA review. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article needs copyediting of some sources. Inappropriate links need to be removed. I'm not sure the lists in the article comply with Wikipedia standards required of a music article. Some external links seem to be violating policy.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please copy edit this article for style, prose, grammar and presentation. A reviewer felt that the above could improve in this well cited and stable article.Thanks and regards.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Please comment about this thread. The thread is regarding this paragraph. I believe that the pronoun "them", along with the entire phrase, "used to produce them", should be removed in the sentence, "Computer programs can be categorized by the programming language paradigm used to produce them." However, my edits keep getting reverted. Timhowardriley (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The article has lots of "not quite English" in it.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Page needs an over all copyedit, i've done the majority of edit too this article but i know my prose isn't up to standard ,also see Talk:2007-2008_Cork_players_strike#Fail GA Gnevin (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Listed article for GA status a while back, and was failed because there were some issues including grammatical errors. I've now got it to the stage where I think it's ready, but I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes and a LoCE review to help with a future GA relisting. JonStrines (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I hope to get this article to GA or FA sometime soon. I would like just a general copyedit as there may be someprose/spelling/grammar/wording issues.
Edit this request  • Add comments

This article has not been listed as a GA due to its unencyclopedic prose. This article is very short and copyediting it will not take a long time........Regards, Kensplanet (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Over the past year or so, the article has improved a lot from what it used to be. It is currently rated as B-Class and I plan to nominate it for a GA. Before nominating it for a GA, the article needs to improve further, in terms of grammar, punctuation, paragraph structure, diction, tone, and flow. I would really appreciate someone's help with this matter. Thanks
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Chit Swe is an important biography figure and the article needs a big copyedit. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Failed one FAC due to prose, and there are similar objections on the article's second FAC. Neither FAC has objections under any other criteria. Sceptre (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Hi. I put Attachment therapy in for GA. I've addressed all the advice given (except article length - with which I do not agree). The reviewer said it was badly in need of copy editing.

It is a discrete topic and would not lend itself to daughter articles being split off. It is also a highly controversial topic which needs comprehensive treatment and I am loathe to 'dump' any of the information contained in the article. All advice and help gratefully recieved. Fainites barley 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit this request  • Add comments
  • O the revered League of Copyeditors! I (nominator) wish that this article meets the standards of WP:MOS. The lead needs a touch up and I am not sure if the 1st sentence of the article is well written. Some spelling , grammatical, etc mistakes may be present. Please be as bold as you can and be merciless in your editing. Also feel free to contact me on my talk page or the article talk page if you feel the need to. Thank you. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would love to help with this article. --Shruti14 t c s 00:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Washington Irving is not yet a good article candidate, but we hope to put it forward soon. Many content changes came from a writer who is not a long-term Wikipedian and may not know all the stylistic rules, etc. The article has grown very, very substantially in a short period of time. Any help is appreciated! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • awkward language
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The content is largely good, but the image captions are extremely unprofessional. Two editors have vehemently reverted any attempt to alter them in any way. At the suggestion of an editor asked to mediate, I am calling a neutral and uninvested third party to copy-edit.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I have checked it, but mistakes might still be there. The only place where I'd like you to ask me before changing is in the quotes. For example, this: "Very well received by the different categories of the public, from critics to publishers, and simple spectators, Corneliu Porumboiu's film '12:08 East of Bucharest'", isn't a proper sentence, but that's how it was in the original Romanian quote as well. Of course if you find grammar mistakes or typos in the quotes, there's no need to ask me. diego_pmc (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I'd like someone to check the article for any grammar issues, as this is mainly the only reason why it cannot be featured yet. Gocsa (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article basically needs tidying up. After getting a thorough copyedit, I will tighten up its references. This article needs to comply more with Wikipedia standards for Good (GA) Articles. It is not a GA article yet (whether that is currently apparent from just looking at it or not), but it was listed for GA review and failed. Comments on improving its prose and other matters were left on its talk page and in its current peer review. A suggestion was made that it most certainly needs a copyedit. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Article is in pretty good shape, but it still needs some tweaking. Not sure how much copyediting it needs, but decided to list it just in case. Looking to get this article to FA status. It's not a GA yet, though it could have been by now. Instead, I decided to set my sights on FA before listing it for GA, since I feel that it is only a few tweaks away from FA. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • General copyedit needed before I start improving article for GA.
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • Simply needs a thorough copyedit. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • This shouldn't need too much work other than some rewording (specifically in the plot section, which can be confusing at times), and I hope to eventually bring this to FA status once some probelms are sorted out. Was tagged at least a week ago for copyediting so I decided to take it here to attract the attention of other LoCE members, though I may just end up copyediting this one myself, eventually, if it isn't attended to. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC).
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • General copyedit required as well as copyedits with regards to comments made at the article's failed featured article candidate page. scetoaux 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What does it take to get an article copyedited? This is pretty ridiculous. This has been here for six days and nobody has commented. —   scetoaux (T
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The sections "Music," "Editing," "Response" and "Legacy" look great, but the rest of the article isn't quite up to standards. This article could be a great GA and eventual FA, but it's not quite there yet. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • I would like to submit this article for WP:FAC as it was written from a featured article perspective. Need a a native English speakers copy edit capability as most of the editors have been non westerners. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
  • The MOSNUM had a section completely re-written recently, and many people expressed concerned about it needing copy-editing. The section is the one about Units of Measurements, WP:UNITS, but IMO the whole MOSNUM could use a big C-E since it's a high-traffic page, and a pretty important one for you guys too.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not sure everything in the rewrite will be stable, but everything that is not in the section "Quantities of bytes and bits" will be stable. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests ready for proofreading

Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Galena11 (talk) – 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Unimaginative Username – 07:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Livitup (talk) – 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Sean ODuibher (talk) – 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by — TKD::Talk – 13:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Malachirality (talk) – 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Happy‑melon – 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Akatari (talk) – 16:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

udeonly>

Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Charleenmerced Talk – 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 23:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Lazulilasher (talk) – 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Galena11 (talk) – 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) – 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Sean ODuibher (talk) – 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Gprince007 (talk) – 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Gprince007 (talk) – 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by ['Ashleyy' – 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit this request  • Add comments
Edit this request  • Add comments
Copyedited by Razorflame – 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)